CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter deals with the summary of the study's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
It provides a summary focusing on major concerns of this study: the researchers' findings
regarding the use of Vertical, Lattice, ad Vedic Methods in multiplying Numbers among BEEd-
1A students of Sultan Kudarat State University; and the recommendations made by the
researchers' based on the findings and conclusions.

Summary of Findings

Based on the data obtained and analyzed, the results are summarized as follows:

1. The vertical Method group, which is the control group, has closer scores than the other
methods, which obtained a mean score of 21.93 in the pretest with a standard deviation
(sd) of 3.34 and a mean percentage score of 43.86, and a mean score of 25.43 in posttest
with a standard deviation (sd) of 1.93 and a mean percentage score of 50.86. Using its
mean percentage scores, the performance level of the pretest and posttest of the Vertical
Method group is described as average mastery.
2. The experimental group A, groups exposed to the use of the Lattice Method, obtained a
mean score of 24.26 in the pretest with a standard deviation (sd) of 3.63 and mean
percentage score of 48.52, and mean score of 43.73 in posttest and a standard deviation
(sd) of 3.10 and a mean percentage score of 87.46. Using its transmuted scores, the
mastery level description for pretest is Average mastery while the posttest is closely
approximating mastery.
3. The experimental group B, groups exposed to the use of the Vedic method, obtained a
mean score of 24.60 in the pretest with a standard deviation (sd) 3.88 and a mean
percentage score of 49.50, and a mean score of 44.13 in post-test with a standard
deviation of 2.64 and a mean percentage score of 88.26. Using its transmuted scores, the
mastery level description for pretest is average mastery while the posttest is closely
approximating mastery.
4. There is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the
control group or the group exposed to the vertical method in multiplying numbers based
on the comparison of the mastery level since the t computed value is 7.36, which is
significant at 0.05 level of significant and from the mean difference of 3.5 and significant
value (<0.00001).
5. There exists a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the group
exposed to the use of the lattice method in multiplying numbers based on the comparison
of the mastery level since the t computed value is 24.58, which is significant at 0.05 level
of significance and from the mean difference of 19.53 and significant value (<0.00001).
6. There is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the group
exposed to the use of the Vedic method in multiplying numbers based on the comparison
 of the mastery level since the t computed value is 30.69, which is significant at 0.05 level
of significance and from the mean difference of 19.47 and significant value (<0.00001).
7. There was no significant difference among the three methods in their pretest scores since
the p-computed value is 0.10, which is no significant difference among the methods at a
0.05 level of significance.
8. There is a statistically significant difference between the post-test scores (F = 243.13, p
<0.00001). Therefore, there is a significant difference in the LSD comparison of Vertical
to Lattice and Vedic. However, no significant difference is found between the lattice and
Vedic methods. 
9. There is a statistically significant difference between the group's mean gain scores (F =
243.13, p <0.00001). Therefore, there is a significant difference in the LSD comparison
of Vertical to Lattice and Vedic. However, no significant difference is found between the
lattice and Vedic methods. 
 
Conclusion

          Based on the findings, the following conclusions are formulated:

1. According to the posttest results, the mastery level of the control group exposed to the vertical
method in multiplying numbers is average mastery, whereas the experimental group A exposed
to the use of the lattice method in multiplying numbers is closely approximating mastery, while
the experimental group B exposed to the use of the Vedic method in multiplying numbers is
Closely approximating mastery. As a result, the two experimental groups are both performed
better as shown in the result in their posttest scores. Therefore, the student's level of mastery in
multiplying numbers can be helped improved closely approximating mastery through using
Lattice and Vedic as a teaching method. 
2. In using the Vertical Method in teaching multiplication, the students' average posttest score is
relatively higher than the pretest score. Hence, there was a significant increase in students'
scores.
3. In using the Lattice Method in teaching multiplication, the students' average posttest score is
relatively higher than the pretest score. Hence, there was a significant increase in students'
scores.
4. In using the Vedic Method in teaching multiplication, the students' average posttest score is
relatively higher than the pretest score. Hence, there was a significant increase in students'
scores.
5. The average posttest scores of the students' using the Vertical, Lattice, and Vedic methods are
comparable.
6. The effectiveness of Lattice and Vedic Methods are comparable in teaching multiplication.
7. Lattice and Vedic Methods are more effective than the Vertical Method in teaching
multiplication.

 
Recommendations
           Based on the findings and conclusions derived from this study, the following
recommendations are presented:
1. For the future BEEd teacher, they must use the Vedic and lattice method in teaching the
Multiplication of integers. They must positively look towards Vedic and lattice methods
as the most straightforward way or intervention in teaching multiplication.
2. The students must learn to apply new ways in learning mathematics, specifically in
Multiplying integers most easily; it may help them develop their interest and increase
their knowledge and skills in mathematics.
3. BEEd and Mathematics teachers must always seek teaching intervention in mathematics
because it will significantly help their students improve their Mathematics proficiency
rather than teaching in conventional methods.
4. The Department of Education may provide every learning community with ideas about
using Vedic and lattice methods in teaching multiplication of integers so that educators
nationwide can use this intervention to lift the country from poor mathematics
proficiency levels.
5. The Department of Education may include in the publishing of Mathematics Guide
Module for Learners the use of Vedic and lattice method in Multiplication of integers so
that teachers and students could be guided accordingly in the cited intervention.